Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

Comments

Exactly, Not this again....GM/Pontiac testing and engineers disagrees with you, they stated in their advertising/brochures the Auto was faster, 0-60 and 1/4 mile. It's more consistent too. Yes there is more to then just driving straight. Auto GTO drives just as nice in curves as the stick. Believe what you wish.

"I like performance cars for their performance, and as stated here previously the automatic GTO is faster then manual GTO or manual Mustang."

It really all depends on how one defines "performance".

Is "performance" PURELY about how fast one goes 0-60 or covers the 1/4?

Or should one take into account HOW the vehicle goes about doing it? Personally, I break it down into "easy performance" and "earned performance".

"Easy performance" is a big motor, massive torque, and an automatic. No need to think or plan ahead. The only finesse involved is trying to keep your tires from going up in smoke. Go fast? Easy, mash the gas. Woo hoo! Ain't no substitute for cubic inches, baby!

"Earned performance" is a smaller motor, lower torque, high rpm power and a manual transmission. You CAN go fast in these types of cars, sometimes faster than the 'easy performance' types; sometimes slower. But (IMO) I think you ultimately have more fun because you've had to work harder. And if I'm having more fun, I really don't care if the guy next to me is a few 1/10's quicker to the next stoplight. I'm secure enough with myself to not let that bother me.

I will say one of the things that most impressed me about the 04 I looked at was the seats. Possibly the best I have ever used.

I was really excited about the car. But it ended up being too heavy, too soft, too expensive, too under-featured. The styling was fine for me, but you could add that for others. I can at least recognize that.

What I said about the Z06's frame is factual. Yes, it lost additional weight with the use of carbon fiber fenders and I think more fiberglass. But this offset the beefing up the car experienced, including the rear end and of course the engine has some heavier accessories.

0-60 and 1/4 mile ET are largely dependent on launch traction/ability, yes. This is where the automatic gets its advantage. 1/4 mile trap speed and 0-high speeds, as well as passing times, will be SUPERIOR in the manual trans. You need to be a little more analytical in looking at performace/acceleration measurements.

Moonroof optional - you can get the OEM moonroof from Websto (don't think I spelled that right) installed for $1200

Heated seats/mirrors (does it have heated mirrors?) optional - heated seats would be nice although more people won't be driving the car in the winter (and it can be added aftermarket for about $100 a seat), I don't know of many cars that have heated mirrors

Automatic climate control (should be STANDARD) - they could not get the Monaro one recalibrated in time, but is it really that hard to twist a knob once in a while?

Navigation optional - this is the most overrated piece of equipment ever invented

Better stereo optional - than what? the 10 speaker stereo with a little tuning is more than adequate for most people

I just don't get this line of thinking. Add all those options to a G35 or 330i and your paying what, mid to high 30s? And neither of those offer anywhere near the power of the GTO.

BTW, The Monaro CV8Z has all those features you mentioned and more. It even has rear backup assist with the sensors on the bumper like on luxury cars, optional. To me that option is a waste, IMO.

I like the ride, luxury like, yet still firm enough. Some may say too soft, I like it. Not the feel every crack in the road and rattle your teeth ride of say a WRX-STI. Stereo is good for me, at least it doesn't take up trunk space like Shaker Mustang. Instead we have our gas tank taking up part of the trunk.

A dealer by me had the OEM Websto sunroof installed, but they were asking $2k for it. Ripoff.

BTW the top of the line F body's were going for $30k to $35k range in 2002, clearly an inferior/unrefined car to the GTO, yet knowone complains about that. The interiors were pretty poor, no room, hard to see from driver seat. The harsh-punishing ride as well. GTO really isn't overpriced in comparison

F- bodies had the looks and handling to go with the performance. That's why no one really complained. The F-Body's biggest downfall was it's creaks and rattles, although the last SS Camaro I drove had calmed down the rattles quite a bit. Handled well, too. It had a firm, but not a soft ride, which is what I like in a performance car.

If you like automatic trannys and softer suspensions, you should take a test drive of the Charger. Rode in one two days ago. Not my cup of tea, but not bad at all. Plus, it stickered right at $30K.....$29,500 with a rebate. Stylish on the outside (although I still think it should be a coupe). The interior is straight out of the 300C....very nicely done.

That gets us back to styling being one of the issues with the GTO, as well as the price of its competition (Mustang GT and now, the Charger with a hemi).

Shaker 500 doesn't take up any space in the trunk of the Mustang....only when you add the subwoofer of the Shaker 1000 (not needed) will you get trunk intrusion.

rorr....I agree. Rebates on a car they just announced can't be good at all. That said, as mentioned, I got to drive one that a colleague just bought. He just had to show me since he knows I'm a Mustang lover.

I wasn't ready for what I experienced. It's really a nice car. Chrysler has come a long way with their fit, finish and materials based on some of the stuff I'd driven from them in the past.

It's biggest bugaboo is its weight (no surprise). It's got the big motor, but it's lugging around a lot of mass. That said, for as big as it is, it handles well. It would be a terrific car if it dropped a few hundred poinds. As it is, it's a GOOD car. Seats are comfy. Handling is tight. Materials are good on the inside. It's a little slow on the steering. But, it's got one of the best automatic trannys I've ever driven.

I was polite and told him how much I liked it. He asked if I'd trade my Mustang for it. Well, we all know the answer to that.

Looks are subjective, I thought the F bodies were too boy racer, esp Trans am, too much cheap tacked on plastic etc, IMO. They had very cheap interiors and seat. uncomfortable. '93 to '04 Mustangs had their own problems, rattles etc, cheap interiors/uncomfortable. And gas tank was right at rear bumper in Fox body. "05 stang is a super improvement, best stang ever.

I like a European luxury suspension Mercedes and that is what GTO reminds me of. Firm but not too firm/harsh. In between balance. I would NOT call GTO SOFT at all. To me the GTO tranny has better more firm/crisp shifts then the Chrysler auto. I like the 2 tone interiors better on Stang-GTO over 300C/Charger.

BTW the Charger is not selling well, thus the rebate, only the Mustang is going like hotcakes now.

Actually the GTO handles almost as well as the 2005 Mustang. Check out C&D or MPH comparo's and their handling numberes, you will be quite suprised to find out they are very close. C&D favored Stang, MPH favored GTO in handling #'s. The GTO in both magazines OUT-BRAKED the Mustang by a couple of feet from 70mph, about a draw, But still good for a heavy car right?

Quite exceptional for a car that weighs 250 lbs more then stang.

Don't forget the Convertible Stang is almost same weight as GTO, only 75 lbs lighter. I know the Queen song you are talking about

As for the Charger, you can't turn off the stability control or traction control. It's a 4 door, should've been 2 door. The Hemi is NOT a real hemi. It's a marketing ploy. It does not have true hemispherical combustion chambers anymore!

Challenger is going to be based on that same BIG-HEAVY LX chassis for '08, If you think the GTO is heavy, look at the LX cars..

Finally the exhaust note was rather poor on the Charger, not even remotely as sweet sounding as Mustang or GTO exhaust. It is not selling well from what I have seen and now a REBATE. The grille looks like it came right from their pickup truck line. I would still add one to my collection If I won the lottery though.

The 426 Hemi made 425 horsepower using the old gross rating system. In 1971, when the industry went to the new SAE hp system the 426 Hemi&#146;s output was re-listed at 350hp SAE. New SRT 6.1L hemi makes 425hp SAE.

if i'm directly behind the GT, sure, it's obvious. but from further away i too have wondered about a "poseur package" for the v6. can the v6 be equipped with duals. probably the answer is already in this thread, so if that's the case, don't bother answering again, i'll find it.. . whatever! this GM goat guy says mustangs are way cool, way nice, i think there's just no denying that. and i'm still fascinated by skyline, especially whatever tweeked models there are for that car.

i think i figured out why i'm so often confused about whether the stang is a GT, aside from just being a dumbass. it's the wheels/tires on the GT. they are apparently wimpy! small wheels / thin tires. they look smaller/thinner than what was on previous-gen stang GTs. what's up with that?

Elias,I totally agree with you. The 17" tires that come stock on Mustang GTs are extremely small looking. The 18" Bullets look much better, but I decided on some 18" Konig Beyonds with 255 front and 285 back width. While I know Ford did it to accomodate those that want to put chains on their Mustangs, the wheelwell gaps are huge as well. A 2005 with 18"ers and an Eibach Pro-Kit drop is much more old school Mustang and better looking to boot!

I picked the Mustang over the GTO so I would have the extra money to do all the serious performance mods. I knew I'd sacrifice a decent backseat and a more plush interior, but the price difference from what I paid for my Mustang and what Edmund's says the average GTO price is will pay for my supercharger and Eibach kit.

As for gargantuan glutes making the globe go around, I believe Sir Mix-A-Lot also expressed his love of "junk in the trunk" as well. My favorite line was:"36-24-36......Only if she's 5'3"

Regarding wheels....the only think I'd like instead of the Bullitts would be the chrome bullitts. Those would run about $1,500, though and probably would be too much "bling" (still like them, though).

That said, I'll stick with the Bullitts I already have. I like them just fine.

Had another offer on my car today. This from a person I kind of know. He wants to buy it for his girlfriend. Nice guy. He offered $500 less than MSRP. That's still more than I paid, but I know it would take me months to get another one (he's been trying to order one for a month and doesn't hope to get one before the end of winter).

The 2005 SALEEN Mustang is now out. 2 Performance editions. The first is a 325hp that starts at $38k. The second is a supercharged 400hp model that starts at $45k. Next spring a 500hp model, not sure on pricing. They are nice, but too pricey IMO.